Just thought I'd start a topic for discussion of manufactured structural products and a potential central location to point to various ExcelCalcs worksheets suitable and useful to such industry.

From structural calculations, to material take-offs, estimating, and point of sale decision making and sizng of frames, to CAD drawings and workshop detailing, controlled and or generated uiseing Excel and ACAD LT or other CAD packages.

In these areas not efficient to just carry out structural calculations for a single set of dimensional parameters, it is necessary to find the optimum solution relavant to a given manufacturer and their market. Simply finding the smallest size section is not the optimum solution. So suppliers running around trying to an engineer who can reduce the size of coldformed c-section used for a shed, are wasting time. There are far more complex resaons why they cannot compete and it has little to do with the size of c-section used for the frames.

Additionally here in South Australia in particular the manufacturers typically hold very little evidence-of-suitability for the connections used in their sheds, and refuse to get testing carried out because more local councils grant building approval than reject. So sheds been around for a long time based on relatively deficient calculations and cannot bring about imrpovement because few failures. But then the design load has not yet been experienced, thus the potential defects are latent, and won't become apparent until too late.

That is at any point in time very few buildings ever comply with the current codes of practice. The BCA is revised every year, so few buildings added to total building stock each year. Therefore need to assess the over all risk posed tp society by older buildings, and the need for updating and where.

Also need to get the regulators, or their representatives to understand the potential latent defects in what they have traditionally been approving. They should have no problems demanding more detail, the BCA simply requires adequate evidence-of-suitability. what is adequate can change at any time, even if there is no change to performance criteria. Problem is connection design is not directly called up by any code of practice: consequently dependent on the capabilities of those conducting an independent technical check on calculations and granting regulatory approval. If they have tools to carry out more detailed checks then likely to demand more detail in the calculations submitted. That is they have to know to carryout more detailed checks before they will ask for detailed checks.

It is a crazy chaotic industry. For also need to reduce the amount of paperwork produced for supposedly repetitively manufactured buildings, yet also need to increase the structural assessment carried out. For manufactured buildings in the main have less engineering content than custom engineered buildings.

There is good reason why the big consultants cannot figure out how the connections are proved to work. The connections are not proven and never have been: and at present appears they never will be. I'd like to change that.

I don't like that the industry effectively competes on the basis: my rubbish is cheaper than theirs so by mine. They should be competing on the basis of quality and proven performance: not achieving minimum criteria in codes. They should be pushing the performance placed in codes not trailing behind.

Any case improving the technical document available across the industry and to buyers is my interest. Informed buyers will be more selective in their choices, and that in turn will place greater demands on suppliers to improve. Especially the service sides aspects of supply. They are mostly custom manufacturers not designers, so can typically expect long delays with getting building approval. A custom engineered building can probably get supplied faster, than some of the shed suppliers can achieve.

So buyers really need to be certain that the supplier actually does have a design available for the shed or other structure they are expecting to buy off-the-shelf from a specialist supplier. Specialist however only relates to manufacture not design. External consultants will be obtained for design, and likely to be hot with additional fees for such design services, after council has rejected the scribble submitted by the supplier.

So expecting to improve situation for:

1) Buyers
2) Suppliers
3) Certifiers
4) Designers

By sharing simple development tools, for at the moment few of the suppliers or consultanst involved in the industry can afford high end BIM software. And such software not all that suitable for the repetive task involved in any case. That is really need customised parametric models, with constraints on what variations a specific supplier will allow.

Well thats just for introduction. Still to workout a suitable approach for the idea here at ExelCalcs. Just an idea to build an audience.